header-logo header-logo

08 January 2016 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7681 / Categories: Features , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

nlj_7681_vaines
Peter Vaines discusses a rare taxpayer victory over residence

The case of James Glyn is of considerable importance because it is virtually the only case in living memory where the taxpayer has won a case on residence—leaving aside the admirable efforts of Mr Grace before the Special Commissioners, which went down in flames on appeal.

Residence cases are notoriously fact dependent and only occasionally do any new principles (or refinements of existing principles) arise.

So it was with Glyn. In very broad terms, Glyn left the UK in 2005 to take up residence in Monaco and the First Tier Tribunal had to decide whether he had made a distinct break. The tribunal reviewed all the facts and conducted the necessary multi factorial evaluation, concluding that he had indeed made a distinct break by substantially loosening his social and family ties.

A great result for Glyn but unfortunately, the Upper Tribunal did not see matters quite the same way (HMRC v James Glyn [2015] UKUT 0551, [2015] All ER (D) 125 (Oct)).

The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll